My blood chilled when his boy said "who's that woman", not knowing who they were looking at. Heaven or Hell depending on who that woman was, mind you would never have been hell, way too big a downer then.

Radcliffe is a decent actor and would have been a good choice if the character had been closer to the Kipps of the book, but this version has to be 25+. Radcliffe was 21 during filming and barely looks that. I can only imagine there were commercial rather than artistic considerations in his casting, but it was a serious problem for me in a film I otherwise enjoyed.

I don't think The Woman in Black did it as a sort of reward. I genuinelly think that she was just trying to take Arthur's son away from him or even kill him as well. She was heard chanting never forgive just before. But rather than be lost forever like the others shes killed Arthur and his son were rescued by his wife, (a Woman in White) who led them to cross over.

Yep that works for me also, it has a couple of interpretations, which I like, I don't think it's a coincidence that the wife is all in white. Like I say, it's pretty two-fold and that gives the ending a bit of debate weight and an air of mystery.

Radcliffe is a decent actor and would have been a good choice if the character had been closer to the Kipps of the book, but this version has to be 25+. Radcliffe was 21 during filming and barely looks that. I can only imagine there were commercial rather than artistic considerations in his casting, but it was a serious problem for me in a film I otherwise enjoyed.

I wrote this in my own review >

"On the acting front the film rests solely on the shoulders of Radcliffe, and he comes up trumps. Initially its awkward accepting him as the father of a young boy, and once he gets to Crythin Gifford he is dwarfed by all the other adults who live there, but once the Victorian setting envelopes him the awkwardness evaporates and the characterisation becomes more realistic and easy to sympathise with."

So while it was easy for me to get over it, I fully understand that there are folk like yourself who find it a bit scratchy.

Now I was surprised [but pleased] when I heard this has very traditional, slow-paced ghost story has become a huge hit and indeed I could barely get a seat at my cinema, but then of course it does have a certain Harry Potter in the lead role! Actually Daniel Radcliffe is okay, considering at least a third of the film consists of him on his own, in a haunted house. These lengthy sequences are superb examples of creepy atmosphere building and contains some solid jolts, though I could have done without the obvious CGI. Overall, the film drags its heels a little too much and a few bits fall flat but it's great to look at and solidly plotted, though the ending, which I hear has been changed from the book, seemed a bit of place for me. As someone who has yet to see the ITV version, I thoroughly enjoyed this often scary, but also rather quaint, old fashioned spook tale, though I disagree with it being cut to get a '12' certificate,which I still don't think it deserves; there may be little blood and violence, but God it screws with your mind!

I'd deliberately not read any reviews on this film as wanted to go in without any expectations. I'd not known anything of the story either so went in cold so to speak. I really enjoyed it. Thought it had plenty of jumps (which were shared by others) and held a great creepy atmosphere all the time especially in the house. Yes there were some moments when I knew something would happen as it was cliche but then again, it didn't disappoint.

As for Radcliffe, I thought he played his character very well - you could actually see the emptiness in his eyes and how they changed at the end.

I would definitely not have given it a 12A rating. Personally, there is no way I would I take a 12 year old to see that - yeah ok no blood n guts but certainly has the scare factor.

Being a fan of the book and really enjoying the creepy, drawn out suspense of the tv film (i personally found the stage play overacted) i was all set to pick holes in this one but i was pleasantly surprised. The film looks great all the way through and even with the changes to the book as mentioned in Olly's review, even those of us familiar with the story get some surprises. For me this is Hammer Films doing what they do best - great British, atmospheric creepouts - not sucky films for the USA.

This sort of thing is old news to anyone who's seen Deborah Kerr in The Innocents - and John Carpenter has been using the jump scare technique for years in his old films. But still, it's worth seeing for the mood and atmosphere which is cleverly built up as the story progresses. And beware - there ain't much levity in amongst all the doom and gloom and Radcliffe still looks like he's 18 with bumfluff on his face but thankfully has just enough screen presence to carry the whole thing off. Bloodless chills and thrills galore. THREE STARS......

Well, having gone to the Cinema to see a " Hammer Horror " Film for the first time in MANY Years, I suppose I had expected just what to expect, and I think I got just about all the classic scenes, and predictable events, with jumpy sound effects, and a couple of scary scenes, with LOUD screams, and shadowy figures creeping about in the background. Overall, its a typical " Hammer Horror " ...........

For me, Susan Hill's The Woman in Black remains the finest ghost story of recent times. It has fueled my imagination – not to mention, my writing – for three decades now and exemplifies how the ghost story genre is arguably the most effective form for exploring the human condition in all its manifestations and complexity. Like the highly celebrated works of MR James, Hill’s work evokes similar unease in the reader with a narrative full of barely-glimpsed horrors in often isolated locations.

In 1989, I was very excited to learn that Central TV was filming an adaptation to be broadcast on Christmas Eve; a broadcast date previously celebrated by the BBC with its memorable Ghost Story at Christmas strand.

Despite 30 plus years of watching the ghost story in all its celluloid adaptations, I have yet to find anything more skin-crawlingly terrifying. The subtle imagery of the magnificent Nigel Kneale screenplay, devastating in appearance and intensity, has never left me. Christmas 1989 reawakened my most primitive of fears: that there is something rather nasty lurking in the unexplored recesses of our mind - as if a house of locked rooms.

Fast forward to 2012 and I am again excited by the spectacle of viewing a new screenplay for The Woman in Black. I try to squash a niggling suspicion that despite the expected quality of a Hammer Production, it will never quite match up to what I consider TV’s scariest moment.

But with heavy heart, as the film progresses I find that this fear is realised.

“Open your mouth Daniel Radcliffe, open your mouth!” I’m not necessarily talking words here, just anything to add to the one-dimensional, wide-eyed consternation mode that the young actor lumbers around the screen with. Even the occasional voiceless utterance would imbue the performance with a sense of Kipps’ reactions to increasingly inauspicious surrounds. If this version wishes to focus on the intense suffering of the people of Crythin Grifford, then surely some of this should be sensed by Kipps whether he chooses to interpret events as a portent to get the hell out of the village (but bloody-mindedness and job conviction convinces him to stay); or as an open invitation to help these poor souls and solve a unique mystery. Neither of these reactions appears to fuel the protagonist’s reason for staying.

As for imagery, the clues are unimaginatively clustered and tend to overstate rather than underplay the hints of the horror to come. A number of scenes clumsily place The Woman central to her surrounds and feature an overuse of the literal. Compare the 1989 version where Pauline Moran's brief appearances as The Woman fill the whole film with a sense of doom and terror. She's seen in the background, almost out-of-focus, a few times. The leering, grimacing expression, white face and red eyes, on the rare occasions used, fill the screen. However, in the most recent direction, the antagonist is squarely placed in a cemetery, staring up at the house, in surroundings complete devoid of the most spectral of landscapes: the mist-smeared marshes. Thereafter, the woman makes frequent appearances but these appear designed more to encourage an audience to fear jumping out of its seats than the subtle art of leading the senses on a not so merry journey across an increasingly terrifying and inauspicious landscape.

Even the ending is a rather inelegant cop-out and manages to completely divert the flow of the movie, far too late for it to recover.

Spoilt by the book, the theatrical performance and the 1989 screenplay; is the 2012 version just a long line in the natural evolution of the subtle art of celluloid ghost story telling into a more hi octane mix for the younger generation? I hope not.

Apparently cuts were made in order to secure the 12A certificate, which for a director like James Watkins (who directed such uncompromising fare like Eden Lake and wrote terror-fuelled pieces like The Descent) is a little bit disappointing - although given the involvement of Radcliffe, is hardly a surprise. As a result, it leads to a ghost story that will absolutely work for young teenagers in terms of chills, yet those better versed in haunted house fare will admire it rather than being genuinely spooked - a wee bit of a let-down after the brilliantly unnerving teaser trailer. As for Harry Potter himself; whilst initially giving off indications that he's far too young to play his character, he grows into the role well as things develop and convincingly portrays a grieve-stricken man motivated to chasing shadows - playing the Woman In Black's 20 minute silent centrepiece very effectively in particular. In general, an admirable effort with a little too much reveal of the title character, whilst the final minute is disappointingly mainstream. 3/5

Thw Woman in Black had so many cliches it was painful - yet somehow, despite the constant expectation, I just didn't see any of them coming.

I thought it was utterly fantastic, and many bricks were shat. It was full of BOO moments, but they just worked.

I had pretty low expectations of this, thinking I'd be sitting through standard haunted-house fare, and to be honest had it not been for Radcliffe I probably would have given in it a miss; I was definitely just curious to see how he would do outside of Potter.

But damn, personally I thought it was terrifying. My pulse was still racing well after it had finished.

Based on the novel by Susan Hill and after taking many other forms of adaptations, from theatre to radio, The Woman in Black returns to the big screen. Child star, Daniel Radcliffe, steps out of the Harry Potter shoes and into those of Arthur Kipps. Kipps is a young solicitor who is sent to a remote part of the midlands to settle the affairs of a recently deceased widow. He ends up being caught up in the curse of a ghost known as ‘The Woman in Black.’ The story takes a very cliché and traditional sense of Gothic horror. The majority of the film takes place in a remote, overgrown house. With only an oil lamp for company in the lonely nights of the house, even the quietest footstep sets you fearing for your nerves. Directed by James Watkins (Eden Lake) every sound and movement is used to create a fearful tension in the audience. Minor details in the direction, such as small shadows or tiny handprints, could easily be missed, which gives every audience member reason to see this film again. The use of camera angles gave a sense of the protagonist, or even sometimes the audience, the impression of being watched. Despite being a very corny concept in the world of horror films, it succeeded to create the desired effect of fear. You can’t comment on this film until you have acknowledged the lead role played by Radcliffe. In the first 15 minutes, it was hard to comprehend the Harry Potter star as a father figure, but when you give it a chance, Radcliffe comes out of his shell to reveal a disturbed and professional performance. The film ends with a sigh of relief, until you realise the reality of what has happened. Superbly scripted and sinisterly directed, this film has the saddest happy ending that may haunt you for years to come.

I don't think The Woman in Black did it as a sort of reward. I genuinelly think that she was just trying to take Arthur's son away from him or even kill him as well. She was heard chanting never forgive just before. But rather than be lost forever like the others shes killed Arthur and his son were rescued by his wife, (a Woman in White) who led them to cross over.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure it's worth reading too much into the ending - I think they ended it that way just to make the conclusion a bit more palatable and "Hollywood". The way it's done in the novel is far more cruel and sinister. Straight off the bat I noticed that they had made significant changes to Kipps' background and once the ending came around, I realised that it was probably just to give it a more bittersweet ending.

Grumbles about the ending aside (which my sister had warned me about anyway), this was a real good, solid horror film. Atmospheric, stylish, creepy and scary in all the right places. Lots of (arguably cheap) scares of the "go on, look closely there's nothing there BOOO MADE YOU SHIT YOURSELF!!" variety, but plenty of moments that geniunely sent a chill through me too.

If I have any other crticims, it would be that compared to the novel, a lot of mystery was revealed a tad too early. The book kept me guessing much longer about the truth behind the woman in black and her motives.

Apart from those slight grumbles, well worth watching if you like your ghosty and jumpy!

_____________________________

"Its staring at you in the face Mark, there's only one more sex to try..."

This was by far the best horror film I have seen in a long while, mainly due to the decision not to make it a hand-held documentary. The director uses diegetic and non-diegetic sounds to create suspense, which again takes the film away from the silent "jump"Ã‚Â scenes over-used in modern horrors. I hope that more producers watch this film and realise horror films don't all have to be exactly like Paranormal Activity (Dir. Oren Peli, 2007) to terrify audiences.

The Woman In Black On forehand the biggest problem of this picture seems to be the question if Daniel Radcliffe can ditch his Harry Potter "aura" and give a credible performance in wich you don`t always to seem think you`re watching Harry Potter. In this he succeeds exceptionally well. He gives a great, believable part and soon you`re not thinking about Potter.

The film is all about the atmosphere. A grey, dark atmosphere that thanks to the slow pace comes across really well. That slow pacing was one of the downsides of the film for the people but I thought that it suited the film really well. I really thought that it was scary. The film is full of scares that (even though you can see them coming from miles away) work great. The ending might not be the best part of film but overall it was a very well excecuted and scary flick in wich Radcliffe shows he can do more than be Harry Potter.

I wasn't going to watch this but I was drawn in by the hype of it, especially the criticism of the BBFC for granting it 12A certificate when many had claimed it to be "quite terrifying." Now, granted, it has it's moments, as cliched as they are, but the suprisingly pleasant thing about the film for me was Daniel Radcliffe's assured performance as Arthur Kips. The jumps are there but predictable, the ending is rather hazy, are they in heaven? Is she "returning the favour" so to speak? And what is that god-awful shot of her looking down into the camera at the end all about, as cliche as cliches come I feel.

I certainly don't get why so many of my 25 year-old male friends posted on Facebook about how they "shit their pants" watching this. It's a traditional ghost story and it's shot well but it's certainly not going to rewrite any history books. Average I'd say.

3/5

_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

The best movie about ghosts I've seen since The Orphanage. Genuinely creepy and jumpy moments. I can't remember the last time I was actually scared by a movie, but this one did the trick. Very good film.

in 1983 Susan Hill published the short novel of Woman In Black i have to admit i had never heard of this publication untill the movie was released but now i have read the novel and i can safely say (even though a lot of people say books are better than films) that this film has lived up to the books expectectations and has argueably surpassed them.

As soon as i heard news of the film i instantly wanted to see it Daniel Radcliffes perfomances in the past seven Harry Potters have been spectacular and i wanted to see what else he could do apart from waving a wand and fighting of deatheaters.But it also seems that Radcliffe will always do sinister mysterious films because thats where he is best but i cant help being hungry for more and so,ething different from Radcliffe.

The film is set in victorian times and has hit every aspect of victorian culture as solicitor Arthur KIpps (Daniel Radcliffe) is sent to a remote mansion in the soggy midlands to settle affairs of a recently deceased widow but he soon realises that he is not alone as he is constantly perhaps too many times spooked out of his wits from the poltergeist he must find out all the imformation known on the deceased woman to figure out how to stop the terryfying happenings. he tries renuniting her son who was taken away by her sisters because she was claimed 'unfit' to look after him this only angers the poltegeist and Arthur (Daniel) only gets more entwined in the curse.

Daniel Radcliffe who rather looks the part than actually owns it is always going to have little buds of Harry Potter in there hell always have that look like hes has just been ready for voldermort to take his happiness a million times and he knows whats around the corner.

This movie has every aspect that we expect from a ghost story: the skeptictal,the believer, the ghost, the spooky scenes and the ones who get caught up with the ghosts but this makes Woman In Black very Cliche as everybody knows whats going to happen around the co

I don't really know what I was expecting from this film. I suppose I was expecting something at least passable. In terms of the script, the central performance, the frights.....anything. What I got instead was a squandered opportunity. The script is a work of extreme mediocrity. Daniel Radcliffe is still playing Harry Potter (And more to the point, will always be playing Harry Potter until he refines his acting), and the frights are laughably poor. Not once during the film was I gripped, surprised, or even interested in what was actually occurring. The film is really just a large pile of clichéd ghost story nonesense held together clumsily by weak scene after weak scene that offered, for me anyway, not a single hair-rising moment. Even the ending, which could have redeemed the film somewhat, goes on about a minute too long, ending on a corny note rather than a well needed one of disquiet. The only thing that isn't totally useless is the gothic atmosphere, which is set up excellently with the opening scene, and which is maintained rather well throughout, but this is not nearly enough to sustain this disasterpiece. Being a huge fan of Watkins' previous effort, Eden Lake, I was expecting so much more than this, which is, frankly, shit.

Vastly overrated offering chills and scares familiar to any Horror fan, as a first time Horror experience its fine but the film wastes a stunning visual look on material that feels not up to potential.

The "Woman in Black" book was a superb read with the ghostliness and menace subtly muted, and all the more spine-chilling for it. The film murdered the plot and altered the story almost beyond recognition, particularly the clumsy tampering with Susan Hill's uncompromising unhappy ending. The film's supposedly terrifying scenes in Eel House were laughable, reminiscent of the crass frighteners of a fairground ghost train. The addition of the ludicrous scene of the recovery of the child's body did nothing to improve the book's plot.

All in all, the film is a travesty of the book, and certainly not as scary as the critics seemed to think. If I were Susan Hill, I would be incandescent over the scriptwriters' belief that they could improve on the author's narrative. A great film is waiting to be made wherein the original plot and narrative is strictly adhered to.

The "Woman in Black" book was a superb read with the ghostliness and menace subtly muted, and all the more spine-chilling for it. The film murdered the plot and altered the story almost beyond recognition, particularly the clumsy tampering with Susan Hill's uncompromising unhappy ending. The film's supposedly terrifying scenes in Eel House were laughable, reminiscent of the crass frighteners of a fairground ghost train. The addition of the ludicrous scene of the recovery of the child's body did nothing to improve the book's plot.

All in all, the film is a travesty of the book, and certainly not as scary as the critics seemed to think. If I were Susan Hill, I would be incandescent over the scriptwriters' belief that they could improve on the author's narrative. A great film is waiting to be made wherein the original plot and narrative is strictly adhered to.